Orthodox people in Russia raise up protesting against enforcement of Juvenal system.... now church counsil basicly give up on this case and respect value of Juvenal system... sorry for our brother in Russia.

LOL! Sorry, folks, I just want to know what he's talking about. I'll most likely give little credence to his conclusions, but I'd still like to know what the raw story is, so to speak.

He is talking about the issue of Juvenile Justice System. If you are indeed interested, I can share insight, research and history of the issue. The system was implemented in one of the regions of the Southern Federal Jurisdiction in Russia, quite successfully.

Is that why it's not okay to criticize a moderator, but okay to mix a patriarch with dirt?

Unfortunately, that's what at least some of the moderators think so.

LBK, I already instructed you twice to stop your public criticism of the moderator team's actions. For your continued shows of contempt for our authority, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 14 days. If you deem this action wrong, feel free to appeal it to me via private message.

* Respect the mod/admin staff -- The moderators and administrative staff of oc.net keep this place running tidy. While you don't have to agree with a particular decision they make, we ask that you at least respect it publicly. Do not complain about forum moderation, or the specific official actions taken by the moderators, global moderators, or administrators, on the forum.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 04:04:32 AM by PeterTheAleut »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

I've noticed that many of our posters who are the quickest to defend His Holiness or another canonical bishop against charges of heresy are also the quickest to publicly charge our Old Calendarists with schism. This gives us two options if we are to remain fair and balanced:

We can prohibit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists. If the Old Calendarists are forbidden to charge New Calendarist clergy of heresy, so also would our New Calendarists be prohibited from calling our Old Calendarists schismatics. However, I don't think our New Calendarists would like that option, which leads to the next alternative.

We can permit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists, provided the criticism does not violate other forum rules. If our New Calendarists can charge Old Calendarists with schism, so also will our Old Calendarists be permitted to call our New Calendarist clergy heretics.

I'm sure that either policy will be unacceptable to many on this forum, but each would at least be a balanced approach that shows no favoritism toward one side or the other. The moderator team on this forum has historically tended to defend free speech and be very slow to censor unpopular criticism, especially if it doesn't violate any other forum rules, so you would be right to anticipate that we would favor the latter option provided above.

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

I've noticed that many of our posters who are the quickest to defend His Holiness or another canonical bishop against charges of heresy are also the quickest to publicly charge our Old Calendarists with schism. This gives us two options if we are to remain fair and balanced:

We can prohibit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists. If the Old Calendarists are forbidden to charge New Calendarist clergy of heresy, so also would our New Calendarists be prohibited from calling our Old Calendarists schismatics. However, I don't think our New Calendarists would like that option, which leads to the next alternative.

We can permit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists, provided the criticism does not violate other forum rules. If our New Calendarists can charge Old Calendarists with schism, so also will our Old Calendarists be permitted to call our New Calendarist clergy heretics.

I'm sure that either policy will be unacceptable to many on this forum, but each would at least be a balanced approach that shows no favoritism toward one side or the other. The moderator team on this forum has historically tended to defend free speech and be very slow to censor unpopular criticism, especially if it doesn't violate any other forum rules, so you would be right to anticipate that we would favor the latter option provided above.

There is a third alternative:

Charges of heresy must be supported by verifiable evidence, and not hearsay or personal opinion. In the absence of cogent evidence, decisive action must be taken against the poster who made the allegation. Much ado is made here of the need to properly cite written sources of quotes, reports or articles, so why balk at insisting the same be done for allegations as grave as heresy? Bearing false witness, and all that.

It seems that the MO is to strain the easy gnats of omitting hierarchical titles, but to swallow the difficult camels of defamatory and public accusations.

And linking the permission of allegations of heresy with a recoiling of calling Old Calendarists schismatics is false, a sop, and dishonest. The two matters are entirely separate and unrelated.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 04:32:32 AM by LBK »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

I have nothing against intelligently laid out, well supported criticism of anyone. I can criticize my own patriarch as long as I do so respectfully in the spirit of Christian charity. I am not blindly happy with everything the Patriarchate does. But when I come on an Orthodox forum and see a picture such as above, and I'm one of His Holiness's faithful, what am I supposed to think? If I were on a non-Orthodox forum I would not react at all, but a picture like this gets posted on an Orthodox forum and it just hangs? What if I posted a similar one on a Catholic forum about the Pope or Archbishop Dolan? I do not think it would be tolerated.

Not to mention that the original post in this thread is illiterate both grammatically and issue-wise and fits the mode of "monkey see monkey do": somebody somewhere said that there is this thing called "Juvenal system" and it's a bad thing. And the Patriarch said otherwise? Go get him. To those who know a bit more about the piloted Juvenile Justice System in Russia than "haven't you heard, they're about to start snatching our children away from us!" it's not even worth getting engaged in a discussion but then more folks pull up and post offensive "portraits" such as above and all of it is tolerated - the impression one gets is that folks assume that "these poor Russians" are somewhere far away in a frozen land, that there is no chance they may be here reading this board.

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

Amin.

But, to be fair, no one say any thong about patriarch in this topic. some russin pink elephant representing RPC "play smart"....

Even Putin, few days ago did admit , there are huge JJ corruption in russia.

Something tells me that the OP has something to lose once this law is passed.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 11:10:17 AM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

I've noticed that many of our posters who are the quickest to defend His Holiness or another canonical bishop against charges of heresy are also the quickest to publicly charge our Old Calendarists with schism. This gives us two options if we are to remain fair and balanced:

We can prohibit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists. If the Old Calendarists are forbidden to charge New Calendarist clergy of heresy, so also would our New Calendarists be prohibited from calling our Old Calendarists schismatics. However, I don't think our New Calendarists would like that option, which leads to the next alternative.

We can permit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists, provided the criticism does not violate other forum rules. If our New Calendarists can charge Old Calendarists with schism, so also will our Old Calendarists be permitted to call our New Calendarist clergy heretics.

I'm sure that either policy will be unacceptable to many on this forum, but each would at least be a balanced approach that shows no favoritism toward one side or the other. The moderator team on this forum has historically tended to defend free speech and be very slow to censor unpopular criticism, especially if it doesn't violate any other forum rules, so you would be right to anticipate that we would favor the latter option provided above.

There is a third alternative:

Charges of heresy must be supported by verifiable evidence, and not hearsay or personal opinion. In the absence of cogent evidence, decisive action must be taken against the poster who made the allegation. Much ado is made here of the need to properly cite written sources of quotes, reports or articles, so why balk at insisting the same be done for allegations as grave as heresy? Bearing false witness, and all that.

It seems that the MO is to strain the easy gnats of omitting hierarchical titles, but to swallow the difficult camels of defamatory and public accusations.

And linking the permission of allegations of heresy with a recoiling of calling Old Calendarists schismatics is false, a sop, and dishonest. The two matters are entirely separate and unrelated.

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't make it false and dishonest, LBK. That's all I will say.

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

I've noticed that many of our posters who are the quickest to defend His Holiness or another canonical bishop against charges of heresy are also the quickest to publicly charge our Old Calendarists with schism. This gives us two options if we are to remain fair and balanced:

We can prohibit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists. If the Old Calendarists are forbidden to charge New Calendarist clergy of heresy, so also would our New Calendarists be prohibited from calling our Old Calendarists schismatics. However, I don't think our New Calendarists would like that option, which leads to the next alternative.

We can permit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists, provided the criticism does not violate other forum rules. If our New Calendarists can charge Old Calendarists with schism, so also will our Old Calendarists be permitted to call our New Calendarist clergy heretics.

I'm sure that either policy will be unacceptable to many on this forum, but each would at least be a balanced approach that shows no favoritism toward one side or the other. The moderator team on this forum has historically tended to defend free speech and be very slow to censor unpopular criticism, especially if it doesn't violate any other forum rules, so you would be right to anticipate that we would favor the latter option provided above.

There is a third alternative:

Charges of heresy must be supported by verifiable evidence, and not hearsay or personal opinion. In the absence of cogent evidence, decisive action must be taken against the poster who made the allegation. Much ado is made here of the need to properly cite written sources of quotes, reports or articles, so why balk at insisting the same be done for allegations as grave as heresy? Bearing false witness, and all that.

It seems that the MO is to strain the easy gnats of omitting hierarchical titles, but to swallow the difficult camels of defamatory and public accusations.

And linking the permission of allegations of heresy with a recoiling of calling Old Calendarists schismatics is false, a sop, and dishonest. The two matters are entirely separate and unrelated.

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't make it false and dishonest, LBK. That's all I will say.

Since not one poster here is qualified to formally fling charges of heresy, I would think that the charge of heresy is a mere opinion, a way of registering deep disapproval and disagreement. That would fit within forum rules. I do think that we have the rules in place to protect against libel against anyone, to include the clergy. I would think that any forum member can take advantage of the "report to moderator" button to report libel, or any other violation of our rules.

I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.

I've noticed that many of our posters who are the quickest to defend His Holiness or another canonical bishop against charges of heresy are also the quickest to publicly charge our Old Calendarists with schism. This gives us two options if we are to remain fair and balanced:

We can prohibit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists. If the Old Calendarists are forbidden to charge New Calendarist clergy of heresy, so also would our New Calendarists be prohibited from calling our Old Calendarists schismatics. However, I don't think our New Calendarists would like that option, which leads to the next alternative.

We can permit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists, provided the criticism does not violate other forum rules. If our New Calendarists can charge Old Calendarists with schism, so also will our Old Calendarists be permitted to call our New Calendarist clergy heretics.

I'm sure that either policy will be unacceptable to many on this forum, but each would at least be a balanced approach that shows no favoritism toward one side or the other. The moderator team on this forum has historically tended to defend free speech and be very slow to censor unpopular criticism, especially if it doesn't violate any other forum rules, so you would be right to anticipate that we would favor the latter option provided above.

There is a third alternative:

Charges of heresy must be supported by verifiable evidence, and not hearsay or personal opinion. In the absence of cogent evidence, decisive action must be taken against the poster who made the allegation. Much ado is made here of the need to properly cite written sources of quotes, reports or articles, so why balk at insisting the same be done for allegations as grave as heresy? Bearing false witness, and all that.

It seems that the MO is to strain the easy gnats of omitting hierarchical titles, but to swallow the difficult camels of defamatory and public accusations.

And linking the permission of allegations of heresy with a recoiling of calling Old Calendarists schismatics is false, a sop, and dishonest. The two matters are entirely separate and unrelated.

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't make it false and dishonest, LBK. That's all I will say.

Since not one poster here is qualified to formally fling charges of heresy, I would think that the charge of heresy is a mere opinion, a way of registering deep disapproval and disagreement. That would fit within forum rules. I do think that we have the rules in place to protect against libel against anyone, to include the clergy. I would think that any forum member can take advantage of the "report to moderator" button to report libel, or any other violation of our rules.

You and I certainly agree that none of us are canonically competent to proclaim an "anathema" or decree that one is a heretic.

I also agree that a poster may posit the argument or claim that "X" may be engaging in heresy or hold heretical views as being representative of the poster's opinion. However, to brazenly assert that "X"is in fact a "heretic" without there being an appropriate finding of the same in accord with Church law is another matter.

By analogy, a newspaper may report that "X" is a suspect in a criminal investigation. The paper may not, however, brand "X" as a felon or criminal prior to a conviction.

I would think that any forum member can take advantage of the "report to moderator" button to report libel, or any other violation of our rules.

Which has, indeed, been done, as per forum rules. And moderators have been privately contacted about it as well, as per forum rules. Yet the public proclamation of heresy, still without verification, is supposedly allowed to stand.

Even after you have been warned, you are continuing to derail conversations by complaining about moderators actions. You are placed on 40 days of post moderation. We regret to have to place this on you, but your posting habits have left us a moderating team little choice. As of this warning, no one has reported anything in this thread except for the foreign language issues, and your actions. Your accusation that reports on this thread dealing with heresy have been made is false. If you really think we are being unfair, feel free to follow the steps of appeal.

-ArimetheaLiturgy Section Moderator

Moderation reduced to warning since the reservations made by LBK have been considered reasonable by forum tops. However the poster remains warned since, she did not follow the proper appeal way (moderator > GM > admin) and expressed her concerns publicly.

25 days of warning left - MK.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.